Keith Baker
introduced Cindy Winland, Consulting Planner, who will now be the staff liaison
for the Zoning Board of Appeals, due to the departure of Daryl Poprave from
city employment.Cindy spent many years
in the planning field.

2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES

It was moved by Steele and supported by Pnacek to
approve the minutes of the November 18, 2008 meeting as corrected by adding the
word “said” in the last paragraph on page 5, following Roy Green’s name.Motion was unanimously approved.

3.PUBLIC HEARINGS

The Chairman explained the public hearing
procedures and how the Board decides if the variance request is approved based
on the five Zoning Ordinance criteria.Mr. Green reinforced that the variance goes with the property and not
with the property owner.

Cindy Winland presented an aerial photograph
of the subject property.To the north is
Westbury Court.The subject property is
120’ x 300’.The existing land use is
single family residential.The
surrounding properties are the same zoning.The zoning map shows this as RA-1 residential and the surrounding
properties are also RA-1, except across the street is RA-3.The future land use map shows these same
property classifications.

The petition is to build an accessory
structure in the back yard.The
ordinance allows an 800 sq. ft. accessory structure in this zoning
district.The petitioner is asking to
add an additional 280 sq. ft. strictly for storage, not for vehicle
storage.Ms. Winland showed several
photographs of the subject property.It
is 0.8 acres, which is fairly large for a city lot.The applicant has answered the five criteria
regarding his petition.The owner feels
that limiting the building to 800 square feet it makes storing combustibles
difficult.He has several home
maintenance tools as well as a boat.The
petitioner feels the extra 280 square feet will make the area much more
visually appealing, as it will get the yard tools, boat, wheel barrow, camper
and lawn furniture out of sight.There
is fairly heavy tree cover around the back of the fence.The lot is abnormally large, however, Ms.
Winland does not see anything particularly unique about this lot.An affirmative vote would allow the
petitioner to add an additional 280 sq. ft. to the allowable storage area.

Strict interpretation of the rules for
granting a variance would indicate that the variance should not be
approved.However, this lot is
significantly larger than most lots in the city that are zoned RA-1 and can
accommodate a structure of the proposed size without having a negative impact
on neighboring property owners. The proposed detached structure conforms to all
of the required setbacks for the RA-1 district. The proposed structure does not
exceed the maximum lot coverage area for the RA-1 district.Ms. Winland also noted that the Board had
granted a variance for a storage building in a yard under similar
circumstances.

Mr. Holthof stated that in the Bailey Bridge
Road case, No. 07-12, was different in that the property had recently been
annexed to the city so the applicant had not had to conform to city zoning
regulations.

Kirk Dittenber, 1911 E. Wheeler Street, is
the petitioner and he will answer questions.Mr. Steele asked if he considered adding to his garage rather than
adding such a large accessory building.Mr. Dittenber stated he worries more about gasoline storage in his
attached garage.Mr. Lichtenwald asked
what criteria he used to determine how big this structure needed to be.Mr. Dittenber stated that he took all his
tools and equipment and gave himself some room to be able to walk around.

Mr. Green asked about the height of the
structure.Mr. Dittenber stated he is
allowed 16 feet to the point of the peak.He will have electricity out there, similar to a garage.It is a very large yard and they like the big
lot.Mr. and Mrs. Dittenber have lived
there for two years in August.

Ann Fletcher, 1904 Westbury Court, lives
directly behind, just to the left of Dittenber’s property. Her concerns include the coverage of the
trees.Nine of the 12 months of the year
there is no coverage from the trees and she can see the Dittenber’s house from
her home.If there was a fire with the
trees, it would be closer to the house than permitted.Ms. Fletcher has some concern about the
property values as she knows of another case in the city that had a larger
structure than normally allowed and the neighbors’ property values
decreased.She thought perhaps the
building might be used for some type of business purposes but she decided she
is not actually against the size.

Tom Marcellis, 1018 Westbury Court, stated he
has concerns about a fire risk.The
building will be much further off the street and closer to the neighbor’s homes
in the back.This would make it much
more difficult for fire fighters to fight a fire should one occur.This structure will be almost as big as his
home.His home is about 1080 sq. ft.The neighbors will definitely see this
structure behind his home.This will be
a very large building that will be viewed by all his neighbors to the rear.

Mr. Holthof asked the petitioner why he
wanted to build so far back on the property.Mr. Dittenber stated his garden is between the home and the garage.Mr. Pnacek stated he is not encroaching into
any of the setbacks required by the Zoning Ordinance.Mr. Green asked how he would get the boat and
utility trailers back to this structure.Mr. Dittenber stated there is a 12’ gate that allows access to the back
yard.

The Chairman closed the public hearing and directed the ZBA to enter into
findings of fact.

Findings of Fact:

1.It is
zoned RA-1.

2.The lot
is 120’ wide by 300’ deep.

3.Directly
across the street is RA-3 residential.

4.The
future land use map shows the property remaining in the RA-1 zoning.

5.The lot
is 36,000 sq. ft. or 0.8 acres.

6.The
building will be enclosed in the fenced in yard.

7.The
building will be 36’ x 30’ or 280 sq. ft. larger than allowed by the ordinance.

8.The
proposed building will be in accordance with all required setbacks.

9.The
proposed building has a shielded area about 45’ deep of trees currently.

It
was moved by Steele and supported by Holthof to approve Petition No. 09-01
based on the findings of fact for an area/dimension variance at 1911 East
Wheeler Street to build a detached garage to exceed 800 square feet in gross
area.

Mr. Pnacek stated that whether it is 1080 sq. ft. or 800 sq. ft., they are
allowed to put a building in the same location.Mr. Steele asked about the ratio of garage size to house size.Mr. Baker stated that, under Section 3.03,
the total floor area of all detached structures shall not exceed 800 square
feet of gross floor area unless they are located on parcels with greater than
two acres of land. Mr. Steele stated
they could add space to the garage and reduce the fire risk with several sheets
of drywall.He thinks they could make a
larger garage.Mr. Holthof stated he is
struggling with this.He cannot get by
the criteria that strict compliance will unreasonably prevent the owner from
using the property for a permitted purpose.Mr. Lichtenwald said that he feels only one of the criteria is met and
that is that this would do substantial justice to the applicant.There is nothing unique about this
property.There are a lot of large lots
in this area.The tree line is not
unique.He does not see anything that
would sway him to allow this large of a structure.Mr. Green agrees with Mr. Holthof and Mr.
Lichtenwald.It would be nice to be able
to have a larger structure, however, this lot is not unique and he does not see
a need for the additional size.

Voting
on the motion.

Green:No

Holthof:No

Lichtenwald:No

Pnacek:Yes

Steele:No

The motion to approve Petition 09-01 was
denied by a vote of 1-4.

b.No.
09-02 – Mark Larsen for an
area/dimension variance for a renovation to extend behind the front of the
detached garage at 2209 Hillgrove Parkway.

Cindy Winland presented an aerial photograph
of the subject property.It is one house
off the corner of E. Sugnet and Hillgrove Parkway.The existing land use is single-family as is
all the surrounding land use.The zoning
is RA-1, as is all the surrounding land use.The future land use is low-density residential, so it is consistent
throughout.Looking at the house from
the front, the proposal is to add an addition to the back of the house.The existing attached garage is three feet
from the property line.If the addition
is permitted on the back of the house, the garage will be located partially in
the rear yard and partially in the side yard.The existing rear yard is from the house to the back of the
property.The new rear yard will be from
the addition to the rear yard.With this
addition, the garage would now need to be eight feet from the property line
instead of the existing three feet to meet the requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance.The addition meets all the
yard requirements.The garage is not
going to move.

Addressing the review criteria, the
petitioner states the current layout of the buildings prevents him from
reasonably adding living space to his house due to the fact that there is no
space to add on in the back yard.Strict
compliance with the ordinance would prevent the petitioner from ever adding on
to the back of his house.The applicant
noted the variance will allow him to add a master bedroom suite to his house
without compromising the curb appearance of the neighborhood.By adding onto the house in the back yard,
this is the minimum disturbance of the area while still allowing the addition
to the house.The petitioner feels the
property is unique due to the detached garage which is unusual in the area
which prohibits the home addition into the back yard without the variance.Staff noted that not only does the addition
not compromise the curb appeal, but there is no change in the view of the
property or in the operation of the property from the side for which the
variance is being requested.On the side
where the addition is proposed the applicant will have a view of the neighbor’s
garage.

Staff recommends that the variance request be
approved due to the following reasons:

1)The
structure and condition for which the variance is needed is an existing
structure on the property.

2)The
immediate adjacent use of the northwestern adjacent property is a garage.

3)The
proposed addition does not create any other nonconformity on the property.

4)The
proposed addition will meet all required setbacks for the RA-1 district.

5)The
addition does not cause the maximum lot coverage to be exceeded.

Mr.
Holthof asked Ms. Winland what the dimension is between the front of the garage
and the side property line.The
dimension is only given at the rear of the garage.Ms. Winland stated she did not know.Mr. Green asked if the property line went
straight back, how far the existing garage would be from the side lot
line.The existing garage may be closer
to 7-8 feet from the property line at the front of the structure but we do not
know according to Ms. Winland.

Mark
Larsen, 2209 Hillgrove Parkway, stated if this property were rectangular shaped,
they probably would not be there.Coming
out the front of the house with the addition is not a good idea.Adding on six feet to the entire side of the
house did not get them what they wanted to add to the house without disturbing
the neighbors.The existing garage is on
a slab – not on a foundation.

No one spoke either in favor of or in opposition to this request.The Chairman closed

the public hearing and
directed the ZBA to enter into findings of fact.

Findings of Fact:

1.The
property is zoned RA-1.

2.The
future land use shows the same zoning.

3.They are
requesting the minimum variance.

4.There
are 4 letters of support in the packet.

5.The
existing garage is 3’ off the property line, parallel to the property line.

6.The
property is irregularly shaped.

7.The
addition would be 350 sq. ft.

8.No one
spoke either in favor of or in opposition to the request at the public hearing.

9.The
neighbor’s garage is 3’ off the property line and apparently in the side yard.

10.The neighbor’s garage extends in front of the
front of Larsen’s house.

It
was moved by Pnacek and supported by Lichtenwald to approve Petition No. 09-02
based on the findings of fact for an area/dimension variance at 2209 Hillgrove
Parkway to allow a detached garage to be located within the required side yard.

Mr. Lichtenwald feels the criteria in this petition are met.It will do substantial justice to the
property owner and to the neighbors.It
would be burdensome to adjust the garage to comply.Mr. Holthof thinks this property is unique
the way it is laid out and the location of the garage.The way the garage next door is set on the
property, it is almost a detriment to this house.Mr. Pnacek feels this design would fit the
lot well.Mr. Steele stated it is a
“quirky” situation and he feels the criteria are all met.Mr. Green stated that he is in favor with
this request and that all the criteria have been met.

Voting
on the motion.

Green:yes

Holthof:yes

Lichtenwald:yes

Pnacek:yes

Steele:yes

The motion to approve Petition 09-02 was approved
by a vote of 5-0.

4.PUBLIC COMMENTS (not related to items on the agenda)

None

5.OLD BUSINESS

The Planning
Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals training is on Saturday, March 28th,
from 8:30 a.m. to about 1:00 p.m. with lunch being provided.

6.NEW BUSINESS

None

7.DECISION SHEET
SIGNATURES

08-16
review Findings of Fact

08-14
and 08-15 recorded

8.ADJOURNMENT

Hearing no further business, the Chairman adjourned the
meeting at 7:41 p.m.